(1) The essence of freedom of speech is about letting public beware your opinions, this is where free press and freedom of speech differ.

If a journalist has an opinion on an issue, he can make public aware of it, especially those anchors, their opinions can shape how millions of people think. On the other hand, if you have an opinion, you can't make public listen to you unless media and journalists like it.

(2) To have meaningful opinions, you must not be misled or manipulated. So you must have knowledge on pro and con of the issue you want to talk about.

Because most people get most of their information from TV and Newspaper, media and journalists can control what public are aware of. They will present the pro if they like it, they will present you the con if they don't like it. In this way they can shape your opinions about certain issues, so you will say what they want you to say.

(3) When government controls TV and Newspaper, they control which part of issues open to public, pro or con; they can suppress opinions they don't like. Unlike 40, 50 years ago when they blocked the information, now they don't block all complains, but keep such opinions away from public's attention.

(4) "free" media or authoritarian media in reality, means that media and journalists control TV and Newspaper; control which part of issues open to public, pro or con (free from punishment if misleading and manipulating); control what issues will get public attention. Simply speaking, let them control information.

One masterpiece by "free" media is their success of convincing people to treat government like piece of sh!t, then turn around blaming every failure on government.

It is like demanding a contractor redoes an apartment without moving a furniture, and "free-thinking" people take it without blink of eyes and ask election after election why elected politicians don't deliver. For god sake, they are treated like a b1tch, do you really expect a b1tch to deliver?

If "free" media is right that elected government is sh!t, then what is so great about democrap that routinely put idiots in office?

Read the following by Fareed Zakaria of CNN, then compare it to the way how "free" f123ing media handled OWS. (I believe neither of you have a clue the difference between OWS and other protests)

*********************************************
..........
What do they find? Contrary to what you'd think, it turns out criticisms of the state are not more likely to get censored. Even vitriolic criticisms are allowed. Instead, the focus is on stopping mass mobilization. Last year Beijing blocked internet searches for Tunisia's "Jasmine Revolution" to prevent discussions about the Arab Spring. Similarly last week searches for the numbers 4/6 were censored - the numbers represented June 4th, the anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
..........

Never. Why? because according to "free" media, Kim K's butt is more important. Of course, the corruption on the other side of earth is more important than the corruption in their own countries.

and "free-thinking" people in West stick their chests out "We can speak freely" while knowing nothing about what they don't know, and all they say is what their authoritarian media wants them to say.

****************************************

.....
A major theme is the pressure from the financial industry on the political process to avoid regulation, and the ways that it is exerted. One conflict discussed is the prevalence of the revolving door, whereby financial regulators can be hired within the financial sector upon leaving government and make millions.
......

The article is still over simplified. Look up the name of "Tuo Zhen", the one who changed the editorial of Southern Weekend this time. One could easily find his subtle relationship with Liu Yunshan and Xi Jinping. It might be the first wave of attack from the CCP conservatives against Xi's office.

As far as I can see, those who were claiming "Down with the Communist Party. The Communist Party must step down" are as unwise as those so called "Maoist", regardless of their intentions. Just like 1989, a drawback might been seen if this is not properly handled.

However, bottom line is: everyone should have the right to speak, even if their comments might be disturbing. My Chinese fellows should learn to tolerate different ideas, including those anti-CCP and Maoist.

I will never understand what these Maoists in China are trying to defend. Do they really fear about a bourgeois revolution that could alter the current brand of Chinese "socialism" which I -if I wouldn't know better- am inclined to call an extreme form of capitalism?

I am delighted to see TE is putting up some quality article that analyzes the issue a level beneath the surface. Agree with TE that the relaxed approach towards demonstration is something quite encouraging.

Mr Xi and the head of province are both reformist (so far their acts suggest this) so I don't expect to see harsh treatment for the protesters. It's only been less than 1 month since Xi is in office, so I don't expect him to show his card and sack the propaganda chief yet. Chinese saying: 'ice is year-thick, it takes more than a few month to melt' .

I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt and expect gradual but concrete steps of reform instead of an overhaul - China with 1.3B people cannot afford overhauls.

The only sad thing is, if nothing is done to restore the liberal newspaper and its editors, precedent will be set and fewer reporter will dare to speak out.

it's puzzling to say the least that the other protest happened about the same time was got nelected reporting by TE

----the protest in belfast, northern ireland, where police confrontation in riot gears with violent protestors with some firebombs. and some arrests were made by the police. I don't know if any death or casualty was reported.

Free speech is exactly that. It's the protection of statements that annoy, or criticize, or even insult. That's the speech that needs the most protection, not slavish praise of those in power or bland and inoffensive communication.

The price to pay for free speech is having to deal with public opinions that you find distasteful. It's not a very high price, at least not for average citizens.

Actually, the riots in Northern Ireland were very widely reported in the UK, and given great prominence by the 'authoritarian' UK media. Anyone who pays attention the the TV, print or radio news would have known about it.

The Economist report above seems to show two sides expressing their different points of view with very little trouble between them. This is healthy and Chinese people should feel proud of the maturity shown by most of the protesters, and the police. Well done and happy New Year (both kinds) to the liberal reformers, maoists and police officers of Guangzhou.

I do hope that China continues to do well now and into the future.
But I also hope that they let poor people have a say in matters. From the reports I have seen, it is the poor who suffer for the benefit of the country.
Surely there is some room for people who dissent, and also, at the same time continue to do well economically?

Why do dictatorships always feel the need for the trappings of democracy? Constitutions. Promised freedoms of speech and of the press? Country names like the Democratic Republic of whatever. Glad to see their citizens throwing it back in their faces. Perhaps a little more honesty would work better. We think we know better than you. We say what goes. You don't get to vote and you don't get to say what you want. We get perks based on party membership not merit. Get over it or get killed.

it's kind of funny that in general, many easterners are brainwashed and they knew about it.
many westerners are brainwashed and they don't know about it. still thinking themselves as free as a bird, in a cage of course, conceptually speaking.

It is interesting to read all the comments coming from ztoa789. For some reason he feels he has to defend his country against any and all comments.

Mr Ztoah789's comment above captures his lack of knowledge perfectly. He simply can't comprehend that people in Europe or the US don't have a single authoritarian media. He doesn't realize that Fox News and MSNBC are diametrically opposed on just about every issue out there. There is no single "right" viewpoint in our media except the drive to make money.

Mr Ztoa789's level of obsession wouldn't be so bad if he had some interesting insights. But someone who is constantly in attack mode is incapable of acknowledging another person's point of view. And if most people in a country can't hear a new point of view, they won't grow.

I don't think that most Chinese are narrow minded like our friend Ztoa. I have had plenty of Chinese friends over the years and most are quite thoughtful. So my guess is that Mr. Ztoa789 is either an extreme nationalist or a paid shill. But in any case, he's a great example of the wackos and trolls (from every country) that are out there.

Ztoa789, it's now clear to me that you have no idea of what you are talking about regarding the level of free press or speech in any other country. So let me give you a few actual facts regarding this death penalty issue you've just brought up:
* Many states in the US have the death penalty, many other states do not. Look it up on Google.
* California just voted in Nov. on whether to continue to have the death penalty. And I personally heard several programs and read columns supporting both points of view. (The voters decided to keep the death penalty in the state.)
* Many of the most influential newspapers, The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times are against the death penalty and say so often. Fox News and other conservative news outlets are for it. These papers are no forced by anyone to change their opinions.
So your contention that the US media don't talk about this issue is flat out WRONG. The fact is that different parts of our country have vastly different opinions on the issue and make their opinions knows in the media and by voting for leaders who are for or against the issue.
If you knew anything at all about the US you wouldn't be so sure of yourself -- and so embarrassingly wrong. If you want to comment on a subject, get your facts straight. It's no fun to look like a fool and it hurts the cause you believe in so strongly.

There are stories on all three of those issues (*especially* on flaws in economic practices and on systemic corruption) in major American media (to say nothing of the UK and Europe), as well as in a host of ancillary but well-respected publications.

What are you planning to buy with the meager handful of yuan this thread has earned you?

Ztoa, you don't seem to have heard anything I said. So I will try one final time.

"If rich own media can refuse..." The corporate media doesn't refuse to cover the death penalty or any other subject if it will make them money. I just told you that both sides of the issue get lots of coverage.

"...why can't state media?" There is no "state" media in the sense you mean in the US. The US Govt. owns no newspapers or TV stations. How can you not know this???

"... pope's opinion on the...." Yes the Pope's condemnation of Pussy Riot was covered in the US. Putin's statements were well covered. The statements by Pussy Riot were well covered. Go to Google's US site (if you are allowed to) and do a search on "Pussy Riot" and "Pope" and you will see hundreds of results.

"...how serious the corruption is in usa" There are always officials and corporations that get into trouble for this issue and they get lots of coverage. But it's such an everyday event, I generally don't waste my time.

"Has any major media blame ... on their system" There have been THOUSANDS of articles on the recent financial collapse and all the complex issues that caused the problems. There have been many TV shows, books, movies. If you know anything at all about the US media you wouldn't ask that question.

"You have no opinions of yourself." I'm actually considered one of the more opinionated folks out there according to my wife and friends. But I'm not someone who buys into the opinion of any one party or any politician. I try to do my own research and find solutions that get beyond the knee-jerk POVs of so many of the trolls that post to web sites.

I have to admit, I've enjoyed peeking into your mind, Mr Ztoa789. You are an interesting (and sad) character. But I have to get back to work. So all the best.
Tim

- Your comments are a load of horse dung and they're on this press page, aren't you? Now think - The Economist may or may not be controlled by some authoritarian government (in your Quixotic imagination but I'll cut you some slack), point is either way this reasonably intelligent authority is tolerating your stupidity.

What more evidence of free speech do you need than that one of the world's most respected newspapers lets clowns like you spew your verbal crap.

By the way, I'd say that your comments were worthless but hey, at least they're good for a hearty laugh. Keep them coming and turn up the "R for ridiculous" and "N for nonsense" buttons some more.

Western mass media are not diametrically opposed to each other on just about any issue. They are opposed to each other on small issues mostly of local importance. It takes an outsider to see the forest for the trees. I, for example, follow Western and Russian media and see the difference. I suppose it's similar when it comes to Chinese point of view.

I don't have an idea of just how pervasive the ultranationalistic worldview is among mainland Chinese, but judging by the "angry youth" (愤青)lynch mobs on the Chinese net and in the WWW, as well as my own experience debating them in person, there are no few of them. I would hazard a guess that this is the product of decades of nationalistic education coupled with a victimhood mentality that has ingrained into the modern Chinese person a deep sense of insecurity that the world, esp the West, is out to get them, destabilize China, despoil her of riches, etc.

The fundamental flaw of course in these mental zombies' thinking is that criticism of the flaws in Chinese gov't or society equates to a slap in the face of Chinese people. There is this difficulty of decoupling the idea of "party", "state" and "society." And then of course there's the "Confucian" way of "giving face" or not wanting to embarrass the other even as you're criticizing them.

These small-minded people are unwilling to acknowledge that even with mainstream media biases in the West, there is at least contrasting points of view (ex., CNBC vs Fox vs BBC vs al-Jazeera US), a supermarket of information from which the audience can pick and decide—a state of affairs that is absolutely impossible in today's China.

Tell me why Chinese media is not allowed to air the dissenting voices. Never mind Liu Xiaobo, that guy's a nutcase. Let's try with Chen Guangcheng, who was merely fighting THROUGH THE COURTS against forced abortions, which is plainly murder.

Chen filed lawsuits, protested peacefully. What did they do? Put him in jail, harass his family, beat up his brother and cousin, then promptly put him under house arrest immediately after his release from jail. And now they've incarcerated his nephew. Has that ever happened to anyone in the West who has disagreed with the government? There you go, you stinking wumaodang troll.

Nice comment on Ztoa's comments, but press in Europe and US is, believe it or not, also secretly influenced by the authority. You can read some books about media & power relationship. News is filtered and the stand of the press is secretly controlled, although some just to a little extent. Don't be so complacent when it comes to press freedom comparison.

Nice comment on Ztoa's comments, but press in Europe and US is, believe it or not, also secretly influenced by the authority. You can read some books about media & power relationship. News is filtered and the stand of the press is secretly controlled, although some just to a little extent. Don't be so complacent when it comes to press freedom comparison.

and TE says: 'One large banner held up by two men said simply: Free China. At one point someone was heard to shout: “Down with the Communist Party. The Communist Party must step down!”
/
/
what's the big deal reporting that? didn't you hear that sort of talking all the time in the west also?

china is a law-and-order nation, nobody is going to land in jail for saying that in china.

but one has to worry and should worry about going to jail if he schemes or instigates to overthrow the government, as one would in any major country. even then, chances are he won't be subjected to ' post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” techniques' (per another TE article here) practiced in some more advanced nations.

Anyway, "China is a law-&-order nation"<---you just lost all credibility there. I have lived and worked in China before and continue to visit it every year. It does LOOK LIKE a lawful society....until you get into a dispute with someone rich, powerful or well-connected. Then you tell me where the law and the order is.

Quit the criticism about "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the US. The 老虎凳 is far more commonly applied as an investigative tool by the Chinese police, and infinitely more memorable for the victim.